State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Army Institute Of Law, vs Navneet Kaur on 18 April, 2011
2nd Bench
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PUNJAB
SCO NO.3009-12, SECTOR 22-D, CHANDIGARH.
First Appeal No.1342 of 2010.
Date of Institution: 02.08.2010.
Date of Decision: 18.04.2011.
Army Institute of Law, through its Registrar, Sector-68, Mohali, District
Mohali.
.....Appellant.
Versus
Navneet Kaur D/o Sh. Jaswant Singh, H.No.2525/B, Sector 47-C,
Chandigarh (UT)-160047.
....Respondent.
First Appeal against the order dated
01.07.2010 of the District Consumer
Disputes Redressal Forum, SAS Nagar,
Mohali.
Before:-
Shri Inderjit Kaushik, Presiding Member.
Shri Baldev Singh Sekhon, Member.
Present:-
For the appellant : Sh. Chanan Singh, Advocate.
For the respondent : Sh. Jaswant Singh, Representative.
INDERJIT KAUSHIK, PRESIDING MEMBER:-
Army Institute of Law, appellant (In short "the appellant") has filed this appeal against the order dated 01.07.2010 passed by the learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, SAS Nagar, Mohali (in short "the District Forum").
2. Facts in brief are that Navneet Kaur, respondent/ complainant (in short, "the respondent") filed a complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short, "the Act"), pleading that the respondent applied for admission in the appellant Institute and she was admitted in Ist Year session 2007-08 and deposited a lump sum amount of Rs.1,02,465/- on 06.07.2007 on account of fee for admission, tuition fee etc. including the refundable security etc. and after passing the Ist Year, applied First Appeal No.1342 of 2010 2 for admission in the 2nd Year for the Session 2008-09 and she was admitted.
3. In the second week of April, 2009, the respondent was suffering from blackout headache, anemic and pain in left eye and took medical leave from 19.04.2009 to 29.04.2009 and onward normal holidays on account of preparation of 4th semester examinations. Vide application dated 19.04.2009, the respondent left the hostel in the evening on 20.04.2009 and appeared in the examination.
4. The father of the respondent was not able to pay the college fee and the respondent enquired from Punjabi University for migration, where vacant seats were available and the admission was subject to issuance of 'No Objection Certificate' and 'Migration Certificate' by the appellant. The respondent applied for 'No Objection Certificate' and 'Migration Certificate' vide application dated June, 2009 and the same were issued on 25.06.2009 without any objection or warning that in case the respondent leaves the appellant Institute, then she has to deposit the tuition and hostel fee for balance three years, amounting to Rs.75,000/-. The respondent neither filled admission form nor deposited the requisite fee for the next session i.e. 2009-10 for the 3rd Year.
5. The respondent applied for admission in 5th Semester in the Punjabi University and pursued the matter for grant of permission and the same was granted vide letter dated 16.09.2009. The respondent intimated about the permission of migration and taking admission vide application dated 17.09.2009 to the appellant and she continued her studies in Punjabi University.
6. The respondent visited the office of the appellant, to get the refund of security deposit of Rs.41,000/- a number of times, but the same was denied vide letter dated 22.10.2009. The appellant further demanded a sum of Rs.34,000/- on account of tuition and hostel fee for the remaining First Appeal No.1342 of 2010 3 three years by adjusting the security deposit of Rs.41,000/- in compliance with the AWES decision notified through notice dated 29.05.2009. The said decision was taken exparte under undue influence against the principle of natural justice and is illegal and null and void.
7. The respondent suffered mental harassment and agony due to non-payment of Rs.41,000/- and further demand of Rs.34,000/- is illegal. Non-refund of the security deposit amounts to deficiency in service on the part of the appellant. Hence, it was prayed that the appellant be directed to refund the security deposit of Rs.41,000/- along with interest @ 9% p.a. on quarterly rests from 26.10.2009 till realization and to pay Rs.5,000/- as compensation for harassment and Rs.2,000/- as litigation expenses.
8. In the reply filed on behalf of the appellant, the preliminary objections were taken that the respondent is estopped by her act and conduct from filing the present complaint, as she agreed to abide by the terms and conditions contained in the prospectus issued for the relevant sessions 2007-08 and 2008-09 and the complaint is not maintainable. The appellant is being managed and run by the Army Welfare Education Society (AWES) on 'No Profit No Loss Basis'. As per Para-282 of the Rules and Regulations of AWES, the fee structure of the appellant is determined scientifically and intelligently in order to run the college efficiently without any outside support and the funds must be generated to pay the salary bill, upkeep of buildings, support electricity, water, communication and transport expenditure and their fee structure must continue to remain less than private colleges or even Private Aided Colleges. Para-289 provides that once the admission results are announced, there is a need to take a security deposit along with willingness certificate so that candidates do not keep holding on to the seats and also to ensure that candidates in waiting list are called in time. This will ensure that seats are fully utilized and the institutes are not put to financial hardship due to seats remaining vacant". First Appeal No.1342 of 2010 4
9. It was further pleaded that as per following terms and conditions of the admission into B.A., L.L.B. 5 Years' Course w.e.f. the sessions 2007-08:-
"Any student who leaves the institute without completing the B.A., L.L.B. 5 Years' Course, shall not be entitled to the refundable security, and the respondent by filing a duly signed declaration annexure-R1 (ibid) has specifically undertaken to abide by the said terms and conditions".
Since the respondent got admission after submitting undertaking to abide by the said terms and conditions regarding payment of charges, fee and refund, as such, she is not entitled to the refund of security deposit. Moreover, the appellant is entitled to recover the remaining amount of Rs.34,000/- from the respondent after adjusting the security amount of Rs.41,000/- as per above terms and conditions of the prospectus. Denying all other allegations, it was prayed that the complaint may be dismissed.
10. Parties led evidence in support of their respective contentions by way of affidavits and documents.
11. After going through the documents and material placed on file and after hearing the learned counsel for the parties, the learned District Forum observed that insistence of the appellant (OP) to demand from the respondent (complainant) fee for the remaining period of the course and to adjust the security against that fee, is nothing but a case of unfair trade practice and deficiency in service, and allowed the complaint quashing the demand of tuition fee of Rs.75,000/- and the appellant was directed to refund the security amount of Rs.41,000/- to the respondent with interest thereon @ 9% p.a. w.e.f. 26.10.2009 till date of actual payment. The appellant was further directed to pay Rs.2000/- as litigation costs.
12. Aggrieved by the impugned order dated 01.07.2010, the appellant has come up in appeal.
First Appeal No.1342 of 2010 5
13. We have gone through the pleadings of the parties, perused the record of the learned District Forum and heard the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant as well as representative of the respondent.
14. Learned counsel for the appellant has mainly relied upon Clause-51 of the Prospectus and Admission Form of the appellant for B.A., L.L.B. Five Years Degree Course Session 2007-08 Ex.R4 as per which, any student who leaves the institute without completing the B.A., L.L.B. Five Years course, shall not be entitled to the refundable security and also much reliance has been placed on the List of Students on Roll Ex.R5 as per which, respondent Navneet Kaur vacated the seat which remained vacant and declaration Ex.R1 which was signed by the respondent. It was contended that the appellant-institute is an unaided institute and suffered loss because of the seat vacated by the respondent and, thus, the appellant is entitled to recover the tuition fee for the remaining three years and after adjusting the security amount, still Rs.34,000/- are to be recovered from the respondent.
15. On the other hand, the representative of the respondent laid much stress that the Army Institute of Law is affiliated to Punjabi University, Patiala and the appellant-institute is managed and run by the Army Welfare Education Society (in short, "AWES") on "No Profit No Loss Basis". It was contended that the respondent applied for 'No Objection Certificate' as well as 'Migration Certificate' and the same was issued in the month of June, 2009 and the respondent after seeking due permission and giving appropriate notice, has taken admission in the 5th Semester in Punjabi University, Patiala and now the appellant cannot demand the tuition fee, nor can plead the above clause of the prospectus or the declaration signed by the respondent.
First Appeal No.1342 of 2010 6
16. We have considered these submissions advanced on behalf of the parties.
17. Admittedly, Navneet Kaur, respondent took admission in the appellant-institute in Five Years B.A., L.L.B. Course and passed the First and Second years. On 19th April, 2004, representative of the respondent moved application Ex.C3 for medical leave and the respondent moved application Ex.C4 for seeking No Objection Certificate and No Objection Certificate Ex.C5 was granted to the respondent on 25th June, 2009. The respondent moved application Ex.C6 for migration from one college to other college and the same was duly signed by the principal of the appellant. The respondent also moved application Ex.C7 to Punjabi University, Patiala, for seeking admission in B.A., L.L.B. 5th Semester and attached No Objection Certificate as well as Migration Certificate with this application. Punjabi University, Patiala vide Ex.C8, demanded migration fee of Rs.1.00 lac from the respondent and ultimately, she was admitted in Punjabi University, Patiala in 5th Semester.
18. From the above, it is clear that sufficient advance notice was given by the respondent to the appellant for leaving the appellant-institute and the appellant-institute granted the 'No Objection Certificate' as well as gave no objection for applying for migration. In the No Objection Certificate Ex.C5, no condition was imposed that the respondent has to pay the entire fee and her security will not be refunded. Application Ex.C4 for seeking No Objection Certificate was moved way back in June, 2009 and on 25th June, 2009, No Objection Certificate was granted. Once the appellant has allowed the respondent to seek admission in Punjabi University, Patiala and also gave no objection for Migration Certificate without putting any condition, then at the time of her leaving the appellant-institute, it does not lie in the mouth of the appellant-institute to revert back to the terms and conditions of the above prospectus. Had the respondent not taken permission to leave First Appeal No.1342 of 2010 7 the appellant-institute and to join the University, then the above terms and conditions could be imposed and not after giving No Objection Certificate. Admittedly, the appellant-institute is being managed and run by AWES on 'No Profit No Loss Basis", and cannot be considered in any manner at par with other private institutes. The Army Welfare Education Society is running the institute for the welfare and education of the wards of the army personnel and as per the prospectus Ex.R4, out of total 80 seats, 64 seats are reserved for wards of army personnel and 12 seats for Punjab Residents Civil Category and 4 seats for All India General Category. As per this prospectus, the cut off date for withdrawal from the institute was 31st July and cut off date for admission in the institute was 31st August and interview for leftover seats was 23rd July. The respondent well in advance in the month of June itself, intimated her intention to leave the appellant- institute and to join Punjabi University, Patiala and No Objection Certificate Ex.C5 was granted to her by the institute in the month of June itself and, as such, the appellant-institute very well knew that the seat of the respondent is going to be vacated and the interview for the leftover seats was 23rd July and the seat could be filled, but that was not done. Even otherwise, as per Ex.R5 List of the Students on Roll, in all there were 72 students and 8 seats were not filled and after allowing the respondent to leave the institute, the appellant cannot claim the loss of tuition fee and has no right to withhold the refundable security. The order passed by the District Forum is legal and valid and there is no ground to interfere with the same.
19. In view of above discussion, the appeal being without any merit, is dismissed and the impugned order dated 01.07.2010 passed by the District Forum under appeal is affirmed and upheld. No order as to costs.
20. The appellant had deposited an amount of Rs.21,500/- with this Commission at the time of filing of the appeal. This amount with interest accrued thereon, if any, be remitted by the registry to the First Appeal No.1342 of 2010 8 respondent/complainant by way of a crossed cheque/demand draft after the expiry of 45 days under intimation to the learned District Forum and to the appellant.
21. Remaining amount shall be paid by the appellant to the respondent/complainant within two months from the receipt of copy of the order.
22. The arguments in this appeal were heard on 04.04.2011 and the order was reserved. Now the order be communicated to the parties.
23. The appeal could not be decided within the stipulated timeframe due to heavy pendency of court cases.
(Inderjit Kaushik) Presiding Member (Baldev Singh Sekhon) Member April 18, 2011.
(Gurmeet Singh)